Mashatile vows to defeat no-confidence motion against Ramaphosa
Image: SIGCINIWE
Deputy President Paul Mashatile on Tuesday vowed that any motion of no-confidence brought against President Cyril Ramaphosa will be defeated in the National Assembly.
Mashatile spoke to journalists in the Free State province, where he was joined by Premier Maqueen Letsoha-Mathae in leading the Clean Cities and Towns integrated service delivery programme in the Matjhabeng Local Municipality near Welkom.
'We will be ready to defeat it,' said Mashatile.
This comes as the DA on Tuesday backtracked on its threat to implement a motion of no confidence against Ramaphosa, despite tensions between the two parties.
DA Federal Council chairperson Helen Zille on Tuesday confirmed that her party would not be proceeding with the motion "for now", but emphasised that they would not be bullied by the ANC within the Government of National Unity (GNU).
Experts have viewed the move by the DA leader as "grandstanding" and "seeking attention" because the party knows that they can't afford to leave the GNU.
The DA and the ANC have been at loggerheads since the axing of Trade and Industry deputy minister Andrew Whitfield last week, resulting in the DA announcing that it would be withdrawing from the National Dialogue.
The party has since accused Ramaphosa of double standards, saying that he condoned corruption after he became mum following the DA's calls to fire Higher Education Minister Nobuhle Nkabane.
Video Player is loading.
Play Video
Play
Unmute
Current Time
0:00
/
Duration
-:-
Loaded :
0%
Stream Type LIVE
Seek to live, currently behind live
LIVE
Remaining Time
-
0:00
This is a modal window.
Beginning of dialog window. Escape will cancel and close the window.
Text Color White Black Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan
Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Background Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan
Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Transparent Window Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan
Transparency Transparent Semi-Transparent Opaque
Font Size 50% 75% 100% 125% 150% 175% 200% 300% 400% Text Edge Style None Raised Depressed Uniform Dropshadow Font Family Proportional Sans-Serif Monospace Sans-Serif Proportional Serif Monospace Serif Casual Script Small Caps
Reset
restore all settings to the default values Done
Close Modal Dialog
End of dialog window.
Advertisement
Next
Stay
Close ✕
Ad loading
The DA has accused Nkabane of lying to Parliament about the appointment of ANC-linked individuals to Sector Education and Training Authority (SETA) boards.
The DA insists it will not support the budget of the Department of Higher Education and Training while it is under the leadership of Nkabane.
The blue party said it will vote against the budgets of departments headed by 'corrupt ANC ministers'.
Reacting to the DA's assertions, Mashatile said his party, the ANC would vote to pass all budgets in Parliament.
'The GNU (Government of National Unity) is going to continue.
"We are going to vote for all budgets. If the DA does not vote for any budget, it is their problem. The budget is not an instrument of a minister. A budget is for the nation. Even if there is a minister of the DA, that is not their budget. That budget is to help the people, so we, as the ANC, will vote for all budgets.
'We want this country to work, we want things to proceed. We will vote for all budgets because our people want us to fix the roads, they want water, they want electricity, they want us to grow the economy, employ people and that is what the budget is all about. So, we are proceeding,' Mashatile charged.
The DA has been calling on Ramaphosa to act swiftly and remove Nkabane from office, warning that continued inaction would implicate him in enabling corruption.
Cape Argus
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Daily Maverick
an hour ago
- Daily Maverick
Principled protest or performative politics? The DA's budget vote and the real risks to higher education
On 3 July 2025, Parliament debated and voted on the budget allocation for the Department of Higher Education and Training. At face value, it was a routine step in the national fiscal calendar. In reality, it became a stage for a high-stakes political performance — one in which the Democratic Alliance (DA), a key player in the newly formed Government of National Unity (GNU), chose to oppose the Higher Education budget vote, citing Minister Nobuhle Nkabane's alleged misconduct in Sector Education and Training Authority (Seta) appointments and misrepresentation to Parliament. The DA's decision may appear principled. After all, allegations of dishonesty in the appointment of public officials are serious and should be investigated with the gravity they deserve. But when weighed against its broader actions — supporting the Appropriation Bill, backing the Divisions of Revenue Bill, and remaining firmly embedded in the GNU — its opposition begins to look more like a carefully choreographed act than a genuine stand for accountability. A convenient dissonance This dissonance is at the heart of the matter. The DA claims it cannot, in good conscience, support a budget administered by a minister it deems untrustworthy. Yet it supports the very bills that enable that same budget to exist. It lays criminal charges, stages high-profile appearances at police stations, and calls for dismissals — all while continuing to co-govern with the very figures it accuses. It denounces cadre deployment but offers little clarity on how it would democratise governance without retreating into technocracy. In a rare and probably never to be seen moment of striking clarity, EFF MP Sihle Lonzi captured the contradiction during the parliamentary debate succinctly: the DA was not voting against the budget for moral reasons — it was engaging in political theatre. It wanted to protest against the firing of its own deputy minister more than it wanted to reform the education system. This is not to diminish the need for transparency or integrity in higher education governance. If our minister misled Parliament or failed to act within ethical and procedural norms, she must account. The principle of accountability must apply equally and without political convenience. But it is precisely because of the gravity of these principles that they should not be deployed as tactical weapons in what has become a rapidly unravelling unity experiment. The real stakes: students, workers and institutions What gets lost in this posturing are the very real consequences for students, workers, and institutions. The 2025/26 budget vote allocated: R96-billion to universities. R14-billion to Technical and Vocational Education and Training colleges. 7-billion to the National Student Financial Aid Scheme — supporting millions of poor and working-class students. It included resources to refurbish Giyani College, build new campuses in mining towns, and expand Centres of Specialisation in TVETs. It committed funds for student housing, campus safety, and infrastructure upgrades in a sector strained by overcrowding, underfunding, and social unrest. Opposing this budget, not for its content but to symbolically target the minister, is not just disingenuous — it is dangerous. It delays service delivery, unsettles institutions already grappling with instability, and undermines the very transformation the DA claims to support. And it does so without offering a credible alternative. Is the DA suggesting that the budget be collapsed and re-tabled under another minister? That students be denied allowances until the political clean-up is complete? That Technical and Vocational Education and Training expansions wait until internal GNU tensions are resolved? This is the risk of performative opposition: it prioritises narrative over necessity. Judicial luxuries and democratic realities There's also a class dimension to this moment. Helen Zille's symbolic march to the police station, dragging her party MP to lay charges, was intended to show resolve. But it also unintentionally revealed a deep inequality in access to justice. How many of the students who rely on this budget have the same legal recourse? How many workers on underfunded campuses can march their grievances into the same institutions with the same certainty of being heard? The DA's self-image as a party of clean governance must confront this paradox: the performance of moral superiority can, at times, obscure the impact of its own decisions. Opposing a budget that funds student meals, campus safety, housing, and worker wages cannot be the righteous act it is presented to be. From symbolism to substance If the DA wishes to be taken seriously as a party of national leadership, it must learn to distinguish between principled dissent and symbolic sabotage. South Africa needs opposition that strengthens governance, not that undermines service delivery for spectacle. It must not fall into the trap of simple-minded populism: governing with one hand while campaigning with the other. At the same time, the GNU cannot become a fragile house of mirrors — one where parties selectively engage depending on which faction is being challenged. Unity must not mean uniformity, but nor can it survive hypocrisy. If this coalition is to endure and serve the nation meaningfully, its members must honour both accountability and responsibility. There is space for critique, investigation, and reform — but there is no space for empty performance when the stakes are this high. There is no theatre more dangerous than that which mistakes its script for reality. South Africa's higher education system is not a stage — it is a lifeline. It deserves more than posturing. It deserves principled, pragmatic governance. That is what students, workers, and our national development agenda demand. Anything less is a betrayal. DM
IOL News
6 hours ago
- IOL News
GNU Chaos: Political elites betray SA
Joseph Mathunjwa, President of the Association of Mineworkers and Construction Union and leader of the Labour Party has filed an urgent High Court application against President Cyril Ramaphosa's National Dialogue initiative. Image: Simphiwe Mbokazi The Labour Party, founded with a worker-focused mandate, has launched a legal and political offensive against President Cyril Ramaphosa's National Dialogue initiative, branding it unconstitutional, fiscally reckless, and an attempt to sideline Parliament and the working class. The party, led by Joseph Mathunjwa, President of the Association of Mineworkers and Construction Union filed an urgent High Court application on June 18, seeking to interdict the process. The party, argued that the estimated R700 million to R800m cost of the dialogue was 'unjustifiable' amid the country's deepening socio-economic crises. However, their main interdict application which came before the court on Friday, was not heard. Instead, the court entertained interventions from several high-profile civil society foundations — including the Desmond & Leah Tutu Legacy Foundation, the Strategic Dialogue Group, and the Thabo Mbeki, Steve Biko, and Albert Luthuli Foundations. 'South Africa doesn't need another elite summit behind closed doors,' said Labour Party's acting Secretary-General Lindi Mkhumbane. 'We already have Parliament, Nedlac, and civil society platforms. What we don't have is political will from the ruling elite to act on the people's demands.' The Labour Party's court papers demand: - A declaratory order that the National Dialogue is unconstitutional and irrational. - An interdict blocking public funds for the process, including payments to the appointed 'Eminent Persons Group.' - A review of all executive decisions initiating the Dialogue. Video Player is loading. Play Video Play Unmute Current Time 0:00 / Duration -:- Loaded : 0% Stream Type LIVE Seek to live, currently behind live LIVE Remaining Time - 0:00 This is a modal window. Beginning of dialog window. Escape will cancel and close the window. Text Color White Black Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Background Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Transparent Window Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Transparent Semi-Transparent Opaque Font Size 50% 75% 100% 125% 150% 175% 200% 300% 400% Text Edge Style None Raised Depressed Uniform Dropshadow Font Family Proportional Sans-Serif Monospace Sans-Serif Proportional Serif Monospace Serif Casual Script Small Caps Reset restore all settings to the default values Done Close Modal Dialog End of dialog window. Advertisement Next Stay Close ✕ Ad loading The case has become a flashpoint between the Labour Party and a coalition of prominent civil society groups aligned with the state. On June 30, the aforementioned foundations were granted leave to intervene, defending the Dialogue. Mathunjwa said: 'These are not bystanders. These are political actors with deep ties to the post-apartheid ruling class. Their role isn't to unite the nation, it's to preserve an elite consensus forged behind closed doors.' He accused the foundations of betraying the legacies of the leaders they represent: 'The same communities (these leaders) stood for are ravaged by gender-based violence, unemployment, and poverty. Now these elites want a 'dialogue' instead of action.' Mathunjwa also criticised the procedural manoeuvring surrounding the case, particularly the fact that the foundations submitted answering affidavits before being granted leave to intervene — a step he described as 'arrogance, plain and simple'. The Labour Party claims the Dialogue is a smokescreen for International Monetary Fund(IMF)-driven austerity policies, including Eskom privatisation and neoliberal reforms. 'This is a rubber stamp for IMF instructions, nothing more,' Mathunjwa said. 'If Parliament is functional, why create a new platform? This isn't inclusion, it's circumvention.' The state's delayed filing of its answering papers — missing key deadlines — has further fuelled suspicions of procedural stalling. 'They missed the deadline, and now they're bringing in reinforcements to stall,' Mathunjwa said. 'The President cannot wake up and decide to allocate R800m without parliamentary scrutiny,' Mkhumbane argued. 'This is executive overreach masquerading as participation.' As the legal showdown looms, the Labour Party has called on ordinary South Africans to reject what it calls a 'PR stunt' designed to distract from worsening conditions across the country. 'Rape, violence, and poverty don't need a dialogue, they need action,' Mathunjwa declared. 'We're ready to meet them in court.' Political analyst and author Nicholas Woode-Smith delivered a scathing critique of Ramaphosa's National Dialogue, calling it a 'vanity project' designed more to distract South Africans than to solve the country's deepening crises. Woode-Smith, managing editor of *The Rational Standard* and a senior associate at the Free Market Foundation, argues that the event — budgeted at R700 million — was emblematic of Ramaphosa's leadership style. 'This is not going to be some miraculous meeting of the minds where all of South Africa's many issues are solved,' Woode-Smith said. 'On the contrary, Ramaphosa has set up the entire indaba to distract South Africans from the fact that he is completely underequipped to be our president.' He added: 'This entire affair could have been an email.' According to Woode-Smith, the high cost of the summit reflects its true nature — a political exercise in self-aggrandisement rather than a genuine attempt at national healing or problem-solving. 'The initial cost of R700m is just a testament to the fact that this entire event is a vanity project,' he stated. 'Ramaphosa is even taking advantage of condemnations of the quoted bill to try to act like he cares about cost-cutting. If he truly cared about saving money, he'd privatise Transnet and Eskom and stop bailing out the Post Office and SAA.' He continued: 'The fact that even a cent of taxpayer money is being spent on Ramaphosa's little pow-wow is unacceptable.' Woode-Smith questioned the very purpose of the National Dialogue, pointing out that there is no clear objective or roadmap for how it will lead to tangible change. 'It is also unclear what this National Dialogue aims to accomplish,' he said. 'Even if Ramaphosa hears contrary views, they will go ignored. The ANC has a history of not working with its partners. Why should we expect Ramaphosa to respect challenges to ANC policy in a National Dialogue when his party runs roughshod over his coalition partners in the Government of National Unity (GNU)?'. 'It is also unclear what this National Dialogue aims to accomplish,' he said. 'Even if Ramaphosa hears contrary views, they will go ignored. The ANC has a history of not working with its partners. Why should we expect Ramaphosa to respect challenges to ANC policy in a National Dialogue when his party runs roughshod over his coalition partners in the Government of National Unity (GNU)?' He pointed to recent actions by the president as evidence of the ANC's inability to share power responsibly. 'The ANC does not know how to share power,' Woode-Smith asserted. 'At every turn, it has ignored the fact that it is a partner in government, and not a dictator. Ramaphosa firing the Democratic Alliance (DA) Minister Andrew Whitfield is just the most recent example. And no, his excuse is not sufficient. He is not a dictator who can unilaterally kick out ministers.' He further said: 'He is a partner in a coalition government who should be in constant dialogue with the other parties. He should try that dialogue before making it national.' The analyst also criticised the ruling party's legislative agenda, particularly the Basic Education Laws Amendment (BELA) Bill and expropriation without compensation, which he says were pushed through without meaningful consultation. 'Pushing through BELA and expropriation without compensation, while refusing to countenance any dissent are just the cherries on top of the farce that is pluralism in the GNU,' he said. Woode-Smith also took aim at the composition of the so-called 'Eminent Persons Group,' tasked with facilitating the dialogue. 'Meant to represent South Africa as leaders that reflect 'the great diversity of our nation,' this group is nowhere close to reflecting the true, political diversity of this country,' he argued. He noted that the list includes 'a few business leaders, trade unionists, religious leaders, researchers and politicians. But mostly just celebrities. Actors, writers, sportsmen, models.' He asked: 'Is this supposed to be a serious discussion to establish a way forward for our crumbling society, or a festival of shiny faces and shallow vibes?' 'There are no drastic alternative views to Ramaphosa's dogma present in the list,' Woode-Smith said. 'Only Lindiwe Mazibuko was a member of the opposition, and her departure from the DA was not cordial.' He concluded: 'Ramaphosa has crafted a list of yes-men, with some token business leaders who are likely to be too afraid to rock the boat to be too outspoken. This is not the guest list of a dialogue. It's that of an echo chamber.' In Woode-Smith's view, a real national dialogue would involve voices across the ideological spectrum — including those who strongly oppose the ANC's policies. 'A true national dialogue, with the aim of patching South Africa's rifts and working towards solving our problems needs to include parties from all sides of the spectrum,' he said. 'Most importantly, Ramaphosa's enemies; he should have invited Ernst Roets. He should have invited Kallie Kriel.' Meanwhile, former president Thabo Mbeki in a strongly worded open letter to DA leader John Steenhuisen who threatened to boycott the National Dialogue in retaliation to Whitfield being fired from his position as Deputy Minister of Trade, Industry and Competition.
SowetanLIVE
7 hours ago
- SowetanLIVE
DD, the unifier, was a man of his word, and I can vouch for his dependability
On Thursday, former deputy president David Debede Mabuza sadly departed. Aged 64, his untimely passing deepens the moment of grief. Mabuza's extensive record in public affairs offers valuable insights into leadership. This is particularly so, since his story is part of SA's post-apartheid journey under the leadership of an African National Congress (ANC) of which he was a member and leader. 'DD' – as Mabuza was popularly known – was a mathematics teacher who cut his anti-apartheid activism in the Azanian Students Organisation (Azaso) in his youth in the 1980s, and later joined the Congress Movement, led by the ANC. After the first democratic elections in 1994, he was deployed to the government to help realise the society of the promise of the Freedom Charter, whose 70th anniversary we mark this year. As an ANC deployee in government, Mabuza was one of the early pathfinders of our democracy, whose ingenuity provided the foundation upon which the democratic edifice stands. Their commitment to the cause of democracy helped to restore the people's confidence in the government following the erosion of trust during the apartheid era. His effusive and staid disposition proved to be an added advantage in the post-apartheid confidence-building process – without which the democratic government would have struggled to rebuild and sustain the confidence of the people. In the tradition of the ANC, leadership is a collaborative process. Each leader brings their strengths to bear, while simultaneously mitigating the shortcomings of their colleagues. One has to see oneself as a team player; indeed, as part of a collective with a shared outlook, roles and responsibilities. In this, Mabuza distinguished himself well, inspiring many around him. He was a man of his word, and I can personally vouch for his dependability. Once he had committed himself to something or a course of action, he stuck to it regardless of the cost or inconvenience to his personal wellbeing. He was also a man of few words. Yet, when he spoke, his voice carried authority and decisiveness. To be a team player also means that one should endeavour to be a unifier, a trait that Mabuza possessed in sufficient stock. In the run-up to the 2017 ANC national conference, and after, he was widely associated with the concept and practice of 'unity'. He appealed to Mpumalanga and all conference delegates to promote organisational unity and cohesion, in word and in deed. Unity is essential not only for the ANC. It is of critical importance to all South Africans, black and white. We sink or swim together. There is no better way to achieve national unity than to work towards the SA envisioned in the Freedom Charter. History is the work of the hands of more than an individual leader. However, it is nearly impossible to analyse the 2017 conference and its aftermaths without the role of Mabuza, among other actors.
